The business agenda for the Blue Ridge School Board on February 4th was relatively light. Yet members managed to fill up a couple of hours with committee meetings, presentations and reports.

John Ketchur’s Technology Committee, meeting for the first time in a while, led off the evening with a number of issues related to the burgeoning use of computers and other technology in the schools. Mr. Ketchur said the most common complaints he has received concern the so-called “Pano boxes” in some of the computer labs. The technology department, headed now by Mike Stewart, has replaced full-function computers in some areas with “thin-client” devices that are less costly to operate, but require support from servers and other equipment. They chose equipment from Pano Logic, a company that recently went out of business.

Some users of the Pano boxes say they don’t work very well. Yet, with upcoming standardized testing to be conducted on-line, it is important to have them working reliably. Mr. Stewart told the committee that he would be studying alternatives, while keeping the existing equipment working as well as possible.

Mr. Stewart told the committee that the Board’s budget that called for extending wireless networking (“wifi”) to only certain areas of the high school and administrative offices turned out to be sufficient to cover the entire complex. Middle/High School Principal Matthew Nebzydoski said that the wifi service is being used “every minute of the day, in every corner of the building.”

Harold Empett’s Facilities & Grounds Committee was up next, entertaining Robin Waldowski, a substitute teacher who is proposing the creation of a mural by students on what is now a blank wall in one of the school’s corridors. She presented a number of slides of various installations she has worked on, and listened as committee members suggested alternatives.

Ms. Waldowski would prefer to have the mural painted directly on the wall. Committee members, however, suggested something more portable, perhaps like the panels hung on the walls in the cafeteria. Mr. Empett noted that the permanence of wall painting might make maintenance more difficult, and could deprive future students from a similar opportunity. Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Price said that his team could make large sheets of plywood or other materials available, to be hung on the wall when the artwork is complete. Ms. Waldowski said she would try to accommodate whatever the committee and the Board decided.

Mr. Price then summarized some information he had been asked to collect about a couple of issues around the campus. It had been found that some window sashes have been deteriorating, so a representative of the manufacturer, Pella, was consulted.

The windows, installed in 1995, are now well beyond their 10-year warranty. The Pella representative suggested applying a clear silicone cap to prevent further damage. They also found some sashes that should be replaced, and some broken and missing panes that need attention. Mr. Price said his crew would probably undertake the project over the summer, depending on priorities and financing.

Mr. Price also heard from EnerNOC, a company that wants to sign up Blue Ridge for a program that would pay the district for the privilege of cutting back on electric power consumption during power-supply emergencies, like during a summer heat wave. EnerNOC told him that PJM Interconnection is responsible for declaring such emergencies and would provide at least 2 hours’ notice before an expected event. The district would receive a regular payment for joining the program. In case Blue Ridge decided for some reason not to participate in a particular event, the payment would be smaller.

PJM calls itself a “regional transmission organization” that makes markets in electrical power supply in 13 states. EnerNOC provides its customers, including PJM Interconnection, with energy management services. The money the district would receive for membership would come from fees collected from ratepayers as part of their normal electric bills. Blue Ridge could receive as much as $31,000 over 5 years for agreeing to participate. Western Wayne school district has been regularly receiving these payments for 2 years.

As a result of recent Board discussions concerning safety and security, the maintenance department has installed telephone and network connections at the desk at the main High School entrance for the monitor stationed there. Additional similar installations are planned.

Mr. Empett also asked the Board and administration to add some people to the list of substitute custodians, whose ranks are getting thin.

Once the full Board gathered at 7:30 pm, chair Laurie Brown-Bonner announced that they had had an executive session on a contract issue, and that they had met for a retreat on a Saturday. She said that although she heard members’ comments about her “kumbayah” sessions, she still wanted to get together for such “team-building” activities quarterly if possible, and the Board agreed to schedule the next one for a couple of hours on Saturday morning, April 20.

Before launching into the business meeting, the Board heard from Troy Carey and Mary Casella, two students from Alica Ross’s class who have been actively using the recently-acquired Chromebook computers. The new devices, based on a design by Google, are simpler to operate than a standard personal computer. Yet, with full Internet access, Mr. Carey and Ms. Casella said they had been able to make use of class materials in Sociology and Law placed on a Google site by Ms. Ross.

Pictured (l-r) are Middle/High School Principal Matthew Nebzydoski, Mary Casella and Troy Carey, who briefed the Board on their new Chromebooks; and Tammy and Michael Palmer representing Liberty Exxon Mobil with their check for STEM programming.

According to Mr. Nebzydoski, Ms. Ross coordinated the entire fund-raising effort to purchase 30 of the small computers, at a discounted cost of $99 each (regular price, about $250). She eventually collected donations from 9 individuals. The remainder, $1,000, was provided by the Tourje family foundation.

Ms. Brown-Bonner then presented a certificate of appreciation to Tammy and Michael Palmer of Liberty Exxon Mobil, in exchange for a giant-sized check for $500 to support STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) programs in the schools. An initiative of Exxon Mobil Corporation, the grant will be used for a new course in power engineering, according to Mr. Nebzydoski.

The business agenda was fairly routine, all but one of the 11 items passed as a single motion. One measure will send the boys’ varsity baseball team to Hedgesville, West Virginia for a few days in March to scrimmage with Middletown High School and other teams in the area. The trip – the seventh annual – is paid for largely by the baseball booster club, with a $50 contribution from each player for food and incidentals, and gives the team an early start for the upcoming season in this Spring-deprived area.

The Board also approved the purchase of all-new audio equipment for the auditorium from RMS Audio/Video Solutions for $9,999. The equipment will replace outdated and malfunctioning equipment, which will be removed by the provider at a cost that cut some $1,100 from the original quote.

The Board approved an agreement with the University of Scranton to allow the University to send student teachers to Blue Ridge to gain experience in the classroom to complete their studies in education.

The one item excepted from the main motion was an appeal from Hallstead tax collector Peggy Woosman for a waiver of a $20 late fee assessed when her October monthly report was received after the deadline. There was no response to Ms. Brown-Bonner’s call for a motion. Last month at a workshop the Board did not seem inclined to grant the waiver request based on a sequence of events that made it difficult for the tax collector to have the submission postmarked in time.

At the same workshop the Board decided to go ahead with a “single-tier” busing schedule, to replace the double schedule in place for so many years. They were assured that the decision did not require a vote, but since such a major change to what is now being called a “single-bell schedule” will be of major importance to families across the district, Superintendent Robert McTiernan is planning a broad public-awareness campaign once the remaining details are nailed down. According to Mr. McTiernan, while the plan is “still preliminary,” the new routes will soon be presented to bus contractors, and materials will be sent out describing the plan. He said that he and Ms. Brown-Bonner may also schedule meetings with constituents in each of the district’s regions before finalizing the plan.

The Blue Ridge School Board has a busy schedule before it for the next months. They will hold a workshop on February 25 beginning at 7:30 p.m., led off by a meeting of the Fund-Raising Committee at 6:00 p.m. to focus on the upcoming April golf tournament, and Christine Cosmello’s Activities Committee at 6:30 p.m. Then the next business meeting on March 4 at 7:30 p.m. will be preceded by sessions of the Technology Committee at 6:00 p.m., and Facilities & Grounds at 6:30pm. A “legislative meeting” for all local school districts will be held at Blue Ridge on March 26 to hear from whatever legislators can be collared to attend. All meetings take place in the cafeteria in the Elementary School.

It was standing room only at the February 4th Mountain View School Board meeting. With an excess of fifty people crowding into the board room visitors stood behind board members and administration, and teenagers sprawled across the floor in the space left vacant by the tables’ u-shaped configuration. Most of those present appeared to be in attendance for only one purpose - to make their feelings known regarding a recent soccer situation. Dr. Adams announced early on that if those only present to discuss soccer wished to wait in the school gym throughout the regular meeting, the meeting would adjourn to that space at the end. Almost no one took him up on this offer, and the room remained full until the meeting’s adjournment in the vicinity of 10:30 that night. As policy dictates that visitors wait until the second hearing to discuss matters not on the agenda, the regular meeting business commenced.

Dr. Shea announced that the district had been recognized for their progress in making AYP for two consecutive years in a row, receiving a Keystone award. She acknowledged the board, the principal, the former superintendent, the staff, and the parents for their work.

Veronica Robbins gave the student government liaison report, in which she briefly reviewed student items of note. Student Government was planning a Pennies for Patients initiative. The Olweus program had begun a student of the month program, the winners of which were able to go out to lunch with Mr. Presley. The art club was painting murals through the school. The senior and junior classes were participating in fund raisers. The scholastic team was to compete in Waverly.

Dr. Adams asked how the students of the month were selected. It was faculty driven, Mr. Presley explained. The instructors made nominations with reasoning behind them, and a small committee chose the winners. Permission was sought from the parents, and the students taken to Bingham’s as a reward.

During the first hearing of visitors, Mr. Griffiths asked if they were compliant with occupancy limits, with so many people in the room. Dr. Adams did not know. Mr. Griffiths thought that they were quite a bit over. Dr. Adams thanked him, but no one left.

There was some discussion regarding security. Mr. Taylor asked if the board wanted to discuss the proposal of an architect. Mr. Williams asked if there was any benefit to going through a security company instead of through an architect. Mr. Taylor noted that, with the cost of the project, it would need to go out to bid. He maintained that an architect would work for the school’s interests, tailoring the bid to the district’s wishes. Mr. Twining and Mr. Williams suggested that the alarm company might be able to write their own specifications. Mr. Twining did not think that the district needed to spend the money which had been suggested as the cost of an architect. He felt that they could meet with the security companies. Mrs. Shea and Mr. Taylor reminded those present that it was not just the security system, but also the fire system and camera system. When Mr. Twining asked what the benefit of the architect was, Mr. Taylor responded that it removed the liability from the district. If something went wrong it was the district’s fault. Mr. Twining argued that even having an architect would not absolve the district. He did not feel they could go out and sign a contract with out knowing their needs. Mr. Taylor responded that all three of the groups he had obtained information on had worked with fire systems, security systems, and the cctv systems, before- what the district was looking for. Mr. Williams rebutted that the companies that did the installation could also determine what the district needed. Mr. Twining maintained that neighboring districts had gone the route he was proposing. Mrs. Rinehart-Cowan confirmed that Mr. Taylor was suggesting that the architectural firm would write the design specifications according to what the district wanted.

Mr. Williams presented the survey results regarding the feasibility of cell phones versus radio for transportation purposes. A significant number of transportation people felt that cell phone coverage was not sufficient to provide them with coverage in case of emergency. The question, he continued, was then whether a two way radio system would be better, who would man it, and would it be interoperable with the state police system. Mr. Taylor explained that there was a base system, which would not communicate with the state police, but could communicate with the 911 center if necessary. Mr. Williams asked if it would provide better coverage, and Mr. Taylor responded that there would be no missed spots in the district coverage area. Mrs. Shea added that there were also GPS systems in the installed models, and panic buttons.

Mr. Stoddard proposed approving purchase of the base and hand held radios for those in need of it. He also raised the question regarding what happened to the radios as regarded private contractors. In answer to his question of who would man the base, it was responded by Mrs. Shea that there would be administrative coverage.

Dr. Adams pointed out that there were drivers who had 100% coverage with a cell phone. Mr. Williams opined that for consistency’s sake everyone should use the same system. Mr. Twining said that he appreciated the survey but he didn’t think it had been filled out very well, and he suggested that the contractors be spoken with for further information.

Mr. Patchcoski agreed to this, that some of the surveys may have been misleading. He also spoke about an incident when a bus broke down and the district had some difficulty contacting them. The two-way system would provide an additional means of communication, as drivers were not supposed to use their cell phones while driving. The matter was to be further discussed.

Corporal Burman of the Pennsylvania State Police attended the meeting to speak about School Resource Officers, or SRO’s. In light of recent developments around the country, the district had been proactive toward safety. In light of that he had walked the two buildings and had done a security assessment. He said that the administrators were proactively seeking solutions. Also, he had briefly discussed with the board what the state police had to offer as far as a school resource officer program. The SRO provided an opportunity for law enforcement, the district, and the community to come together. They recognized the advantages of a close relationship with the district. It presented educational avenues. An SRO was selected based on outlined departmental guidelines with full regulations. It enhanced the safety of the students and the facility. It provided students with an orderly and secure atmosphere and reduced juvenile crime within the schools and community. An officer would be set up with the school for whatever hours the district decided to agree to. The SRO would be fully equipped with all the equipment and training by the state police. The equipment would be owned by the state police and not the district. A school resource officer would have to express desire for the program. There would also be a PA State Police vehicle parked on school grounds, which he called a visual deterrent. His reason for presenting the SRO program to school districts throughout Susquehanna County was personal, he said, because he had children, and having children he wanted the most qualified and trained person protecting them. The SRO could be available for after school activities or extracurricular events too, if so scheduled. Because resources were limited, there would be certain costs that came along with this. He said that the cost might seem substantial, but “you get what you pay for”. The officer would make no more money than other troopers. If they desired an SRO, he said, the department felt it could have a uniformed officer in the district for the start of the next year.

Mr. Williams asked if the SRO would come from the existing troopers, or if another trooper would be brought in. The state police would receive additional manpower hours, it was explained. Mr. Williams said that already the barracks was probably undermanned for the needs of the community. He had concerns about the workforce levels. The county he lived in in Florida had a resource officer in every school, he also stated. They were effective in maintaining discipline in the school and had made life easier. There was a governor who saw a need and was trying to take some action. The trooper said that there was a House bill which was seeking to provide resource officers. He said that he could assure them that the Commonwealth would not allow a SRO to reduce the complement of local police further than it was. He said that the existing troopers did a good job and commended them. It was a large county, and they were covering it and doing the best they could. The county as a whole would not suffer if Mountain View hired a school resource officer, he maintained. The system was set up the way it was to not overly deplete their complement.

The senior trip to Virginia Beach was approved, with the stipulation that 50% of the class must attend. This was approved as motioned.

During the superintendent’s report, Mrs. Shea related that she and Mr. Patchcoski had met with a representative of Governor Corbett. One thing he mentioned was that the governor was looking to sell off the liquor distribution stores and utilize part of that money toward safety and security. This would represent a one-time revenue for the district. He also wanted to know what effects Marcellus shale had on the district, and asked to know about any achievements in the district so that the governor could come were he in the area. Finally, the representative had provided an update on federal stimulus money that was no longer available to districts. The revenues that were made available to the district were at the 2009 level, prior to the two years of stimulus funding. Thus schools were technically flat funded.

Mr. Doster spoke of the elementary play, commending the students on the quality of the show. He had been able to take a small number of faculty down to Nanticoke elementary school, to discuss the school wide behavioral system. They were impressed at some of what was already occurring at Mountain View. There had been a blow out for their students as part of this positive behavior system.

Mr. Presley reviewed the names of the students of the month. There was applause over this, given the number of students actually in the room. The sports banners had been finished and were scheduled to be put up in the school.

Mrs. Voigt mentioned 20 math students attending a Math Counts competition. There was also one Brain Bee contestant going to the University of Scranton for the annual Brain Bee competition.

The 21st Century Community of Learners program was in its third week. The car contractors were scheduled such that any student who needed a ride home could obtain it.

Mrs. Rinehart-Cowan spoke up regarding curriculum. She wished to consider a motion to have two half days a month. This would have the students get out at 1 o’clock, allowing the instructors to focus on curriculum updating. The half days would be scheduled on the extended days, which were demarcated with a triangle on the calendar. The motion carried.

Mr. Williams spoke up regarding the soccer team. He said that he wanted to ask everyone who spoke that night to address what would motivate any administrator or any school board member to do anything at all that wasn’t in the best interest of Mountain View High School or the Mountain View soccer team. He said that some of the discussion that had occurred was based on lack of information or misinformation. Unfortunately, some of the information was private.

A visitor rebutted by asking the board to consider the fact that people wouldn’t be there unless there was a problem, that they did not want to be there.

Mr. Wescott said that he wanted it on the record that they were going to videotape the section on the soccer.

Mr. Griffiths wished to discuss security systems. He felt that an alarm company might design specs for their alarm company, and they would then get the bid. He said that if someone came in for the district and wrote it out, they would get what the district wanted. He also brought up again the capacity of the room. He said it was a public building, and someone ought to know the safe capacity of the room. He said that he was embarrassed that nobody would move the meeting out of that room.

Mr. Williams asked if the taping of the meeting should not have been requested in advance of the meeting. Mr. Doster said that a news camera crew had taped it previously without warning.

Mr. Twining said that as a school board director he did have the safety of the students at heart. However, he said that he didn’t have a concern against having an engineer, but he wanted to bring the various security companies in that were versed and knew what the school districts needed. He didn’t want to expend a large amount of money not knowing what the district needed. He said he was looking at all different components not just one. Mr. Griffiths responded that this was what an engineer did.

Dr. Adams spoke up, stating that as they moved to the soccer discussion he wanted to say a few things. At the Board of Education public meeting, he stated, the board and the superintendent established the agenda, and there was typically a public hearing at the end of the meeting. The board still set the parameters. He said that there were a number of people who wanted to speak, and he asked those present to keep it orderly, restrict it to two minutes, and not be repetitious.

He said that the suspension of the coach at the end of the season would not be discussed. As with any employee of the district the board could not discuss personnel matters. As far as the district was concerned the matter was completed.

It was suggested that the driving force behind the latest uproar appeared to be the rumor of a sanction. This was rumor, it was stated- the district had not received an official letter. All that had been received was a letter stating that if something were to happen, they would receive a letter.

A Harford Township mom was the first to speak from the audience, proving to be one of several that evening who would speak highly of coach Roger Thomas, saying that he knew exactly the path which would lead the team to victory and that he improved the character of her son. She stated that the team had shown they should be playing at the highest level division 1 and asked the board to advocate this. She stated that when Mrs. Shea had suspended the coach it had reinforced the belief of some other school’s that the district needed to be punished. She also accused the board of attempting to make them as unwelcome and uncomfortable as possible. She asked the board to reverse their decision, and ask Mr. Thomas to coach varsity soccer again the next year. She also wished them to back up the coach and send the best person they could to the hearing. Finally, she opined that the smartest thing the district could do would be to tap Mr. Thomas for his expertise in other areas the district was faltering in.

Mr. Williams asked her his question, wondering what she felt would motivate the school board to do anything not in the best interest of the high school. She responded that she felt the school board had been led down the wrong path due to one person’s deep seated hatred for the coach. There were several moments of indecision regarding whether or not she should name this person, though in the end she did not. Dr. Adams spoke up saying that he didn’t feel they could be talking of anyone but him, and saying that he felt they were insinuating that he had a hatred of Coach Thomas, which was not the case. Mr. Williams asserted that he had never seen anyone on the school board, including the president, express hatred. Other school board members applauded this assertion.

A man then spoke up saying that after the last game of the season Mrs. Shea had imposed a suspension. Dr. Adams used the gavel to say that this was old news. He said that many of them had had their say about this before.

Mr. Thomas spoke up expressing that he felt Dr. Adams should recuse himself of the gavel, accusing him of having an abuse of power issue and a conflict of interest. Dr. Adams replied that he would give the gavel to Mr. Stoddard, but maintained that there was no abuse of power. He said that he had spoken with Mr. Presley and that an administrator had more power than a coach.

Mr. Thomas replied that he had it on legal council that Dr. Adams could not separate his role as a parent from the board presidency, alleging that the board had received a polluted version of the information brought to them. He continued to say that Mr. Presley had told him that Dr. Adams had told him if he didn’t say anything stuff would hit the fan. He said that Dr. Adams had panicked the principal, and that he never got a board hearing. Mrs. Shea responded that he was heard for two hours.

Mrs. Aherne spoke up, saying that she didn’t think Mr. Thomas should get to say whether or not Dr. Adams had to give up the gavel- it should be a board decision. Dr. Adams asked the board then if they wanted him to pass the gavel. They replied to the negative.

Mr. Thomas continued to maintain that the board hadn’t received the truth, and that they were getting the truth at that time from the public.

Mr. Presley spoke up, stating that he would comment on his hit the fan statement. Those, he maintained, were his own words. Mr. Thomas argued with him and justified his methods, saying that never in Mountain View soccer had so many inexperienced players played as they had that season. He continued to maintain that the board had received half or maybe a quarter of the story.

Mr. Williams said that those sitting around the table may not have had 100% of the information, but they had enough to make decision. Some of what went on at the meetings could not be shared for legal and ethical reasons, he pointed out.

Mr. Thomas started talking again, and Mrs. Shea told him to stop talking. John Goodenough called out that the board worked for them, and he would take their job.

Mr. Presley expressed a desire to finish speaking. He reiterated that when he said stuff would hit the fan, those were his words. Mr. Thomas rebutted that the board president had indicated stuff would hit the fan were things now changed. Mr. Presley had asked Mr. Thomas what was being done, asking if there were still varsity players on the field and stating that they needed to put JV players in the game. There was some discussion as to the words he used. He agreed that he may have said “the board president”. A visitor maintained that he had, at no time, heard Mr. Presley refer to him as Mr. Adams, but only as the school board president. Mr. Presley admitted that he said that there might be repercussions, but continued to assert that what he said were his own words. Mr. Thomas stood up and keep debating with him, certain that the words “the board president” corrupted the process and that the matter was filtered through a scared principal intimidated by the board president.

Jane Mack, another visitor, began to read a statement, expressing hope that if any disciplinary action was brought against the soccer team or the coach she hoped the board would defend them. Mrs. Shea responded that she didn’t even know what the charges could be. Mrs. Mack argued that there was always a PIAA official on the field, and if the school had broken a PIAA bylaw she believed the official should have approached the coach during the game. She also argued that the school’s athletic handbook school policy dictated that no one was to approach a coach during a game, yet Mr. Presley had done so. She believed that the school’s own policies were broken and asked if she had approached Mr. Presley instead of Dr. Adams, if he would have reacted the same.

A man then spoke up, stating that none of this would have happened if the school had been left in its old league. Everyone knew that Mountain View would have higher scores, but no one had changed the situation- putting Mr. Thomas in a no-win situation. He said that his son played at a high level, and if coach Thomas had done what they wanted him to do he would have been pulled out after three minutes because the score was too high.

Mr. Doster expressed a wish to clarify a few matters. The year previous, when they had been told that they would be pushed to the lower division he had called a few people and expressed his concern to members of the Lackawanna League. He had let them know that the move wasn’t in the best interest of the students. Still, 26 members of the Lackawanna League had voted in favor of the change.

A man asked the board if they were learning new information at the meeting. He said that the board members functioned in one respect as a team, and in another respect as individuals. He wondered if they could honestly say that they had already known the information and had made their decisions based upon it, or if they had made a decision based only on what they heard in a meeting.

Jane Mack’s statement had been cut off due to the two minute time limit. Her daughter wished to finish it, and spoke of other students spitting on the soccer team and talking of taking them out. She said that Mountain View students didn’t play like that, which she felt should be a reflection on the coach and how he showed his players to play with honor.

Mrs. Goodenough was next to speak, saying that she had talked to Mrs. Shea after the suspension and been encouraged to speak to Mr. Thomas due to personnel issues. She felt that the phrase “personnel issue” served them well. She then listed what she called the reasons he was suspended: which included two students scoring late in the game, Mr. Thomas receiving two yellow cards, and other schools calling and complaining.

Mr. Wescott, a former board member, wished to make a statement to the board, saying that he felt a lot of them had forgotten that they were only board members in that room and had no power outside it.

Various students, parents, and alumni also expressed their support in favor of Mr. Thomas and expressed displeasure or disgust at the way the situation was handled. One alumnus and former employee stated that he renounced his role as both. One said that most of the time the yellow cards Mr. Thomas received were from him yelling at refs to protect his players, and that he had the best character in the room. Another spoke of the family nature of the team, and that Mr. Thomas was the most respectful man ever. One was going to college to play soccer, and said this would not be possible without the coach. A mother said that her son would not have played there if Mr. Thomas were not the coach, and that he had known there were students with the ability to earn scholarships on the team, and that if they had not won they might not have earned the scholarship. She also spoke of how he had supported her son in an injury. Another mother said that her son played more varsity soccer minutes than he deserved to, due to the coach and his boys. She felt they had gone on and tainted what the students had achieved, claiming that they had taken their name and dragged it through the mud when it should be praised. She asked if the Scholastic Team program would be suspended if they won 24 to one. One student said that this was the only sport the school was really good at, and said that the team had brought so much to the school and the board was sitting there not doing anything about it.

Mrs. Rinehart-Cowan replied that there had been a recognition night for the soccer team. Very few students had shown up. Some present said that they had not known about this, or that it was scheduled against a basketball game.

Mr. Griffiths spoke up, saying that there were chills down his back that Mountain View was rated number one in Pennsylvania. He called them a special group of kids and coaches, and felt it deserved more than a banner on the wall.

A visitor asked the board how the decision had been made to suspend the coach, if it was Mrs. Shea’s decision alone or they had been invited into it. It was responded that it was an administrative decision, and that the board hired a superintendent to make decisions. The visitor asked if any board member was hearing information they hadn’t known until that night. Mrs. Rinehart-Cowan replied that she had heard all kinds of rumors.

A visitor asked what information Mrs. Shea had when she made the decision. Mrs. Shea replied that she couldn’t tell her. What she would say was that she had met with Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Price, and Mr. Presley. They had discussed several issues, not just the score. She had spoken with the board of education and received some input. Some members had wanted more of a suspension than she was imposing. She had imposed two days of suspension based on several issues, not just the score. She was not able to disclose the additional information. She had imposed the suspension on the last two scrimmage games. The coaches had found out about the suspension, and had canceled those games. She felt that this was so that those suspensions would have to be moved to the playoffs. Mr. Thomas had informed her that he was able to get another scrimmage. She had told him then that the suspension could be restricted to only that one game, so as not to allow the other coaches to dictate her suspension. She asserted that she could not go into other things that transpired, sadly, as she felt that would clear up some of the confusion. She felt that they had supported the team as far as was necessary. It was a one day suspension. When a visitor asked if Mr. Thomas was made aware, she responded that she had met with him for two hours. She had made a decision and knew it would be an unpopular decision. Not one board member had said that there should not be a suspension. Mr. Thomas knew all of the reasons. She maintained that they were viable, valid reasons, though Mr. Thomas didn’t agree with them.

Mr. Williams said that there was a total lack of respect by Mr. Thomas, due to the way he was reacting as Mrs. Shea spoke. Throughout the meeting Mr. Thomas jumped up to debate assertions by board members and administration.

A visitor said that he didn’t come to board meetings, that he had only been to two. He said that he had heard people spoken of with less respect by the board than he had heard before. He felt that Mr. Thomas should have gotten respect for what he did with the boys, and had gotten nothing but raked over the coals for it, calling it “the dumbest thing”.

A woman continued the trend of accusing the board of a lack of support, asking how many had gone to a soccer game or to the state championship. Mrs. Rinehart-Cowan said that she hadn’t gone to the state game, but she had been to soccer games. Mr. Thomas stated that he had received a very nice note from Mr. Stoddard. Mr. Twining definitely supported what had been done, the accomplishment that was achieved, he said. He would have loved to have gone to state’s, but they were all busy. He asked if the visitor had ever been to a board meeting. She responded that she had been to two. The point he was making, he said, was that everyone had things they needed to do and wanted to do. Another visitor said that they voted for school board members to support them, so they shouldn’t have to attend board meetings.

Mrs. Mack asked if Mr. Thomas was given a chance to come to the board in a peaceful manner and address them with his side of the story. Mr. Williams asked if he had requested it. Mr. Twining reiterated that there were some things they could not discuss. Mrs. Mack suggested that perhaps mistakes had been made, but there was the ability to be man or woman enough to rethink decisions. She asked if they were not willing to stop and think and hear everybody’s side, what kind of people were they? She felt there was bullying by the league and the school.

When the subject of board recognition was broached again, Mr. Thomas spoke up and said that the board did have a time to honor the soccer team. He had received certificates from them and did pass them out to the players. He wished to thank the board for the bus, and acknowledged that Mr. Presley had “busted his tail” for them and that he knew the board had backed them.

He wished then to speak about the three things Mrs. Shea had talked to him about. One was the score, and he related that the other coach had told him that he would not play hard against Mountain View, that he was going to play for fun because he knew he couldn’t beat them. He said that Mrs. Shea had never let his principal know that he had laid down the game. Mrs. Shea rebutted that she had spoken to his superintendent. The second item was the yellow cards. He said that yellow cards were warnings, and that 90% of referees had learned to diskile him greatly, which he said he wore with a badge of pride. He knew what soccer competencies were. He wanted someone to run the GPA average of the soccer team, stating that they performed well in the classroom. He had received two warnings from officials who didn’t like him, and he knew why. He said that the Lackawanna League sent their best officials to Division 1. He said that the officials accused him of arrogance, but he would speak up. He would be respectful to those who showed him respect and took on officials as quietly as he could, but he took the yellow cards as a badge of honor for the safety of his players. The third accusation, he said, he took as the greatest attack on his character. He said that the he would not stand by as incompetent and arrogant people stood by and let his players be injured, without a fight. He had begged the officials for a yellow card on someone. That school had the audacity the next day to call his principal and superintendent and tell them that their coach was out of control because he had plead for a yellow card. He stated that they had played the Montrose team, and he had gone up to them before to tell them that he didn’t know how the game was going to end up, but if the game went in a direction that they did not like would they please not let their kids retaliate. They had called and reported to Mrs. Shea that he was arrogant by telling them that his team was going to win the game, before the game. He said that this was basically all Mrs. Shea had spoken with him about.

Throughout his speech Mrs. Shea had shaken her head at times. A visitor asked the board to reprimand her for laughing at something he had said, calling her disrespectful. She replied that the problem was that there were additional reasons involved. Mr. Thomas could say misinformation, and false information to all of them, and because of the seat she was sitting in, not because she was afraid, she couldn’t say the full situation. Mr. Thomas said that he was oblivious to any other information. Mr. Thomas said he was oblivious to any other information.

A visitor asked why Mrs. Shea was on every championship bus if what he did was so wrong, accusing her of taking in all the glory. She responded that she did not take credit for anything, and asked if she was not supposed to attend these events. It was replied that if she wouldn’t back the team then no, they didn’t think she should go. Mrs. Shea asserted that she did not create this. The crowd reacted negatively.

The meeting might have gone on even longer if Dr. Adams hadn’t asked at that point for questions from the board. As the crowd continued to talk amongst themselves loudly enough to make the board difficult to hear, the board canceled the next public meeting and closed the current one. The next public meeting was to be on the 18th of February.

Lanesboro Vice-President Dan Boughton called the borough’s council meeting to order at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, February 5. Council members Jason Fissel, David Glidden, Colleen Y. Wilkes, and Regina Dilello were in attendance. Also present was Secretary/Treasurer Gail Hanrahan. Absent were President Todd Glover, Councilman Dale Rockwell, and Mayor Chris Maby.

The 35-minute meeting was shorter than usual, but was followed by a 25-minute work session for International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) policy formulation. Since its first consideration in early autumn, the code has plummeted in popularity to that of income taxes. Discussion of the code, its purpose, its ramifications, what it is to contain, how it will be enforced, and its implications for property owners and landlords, were all topics ripe with rhetoric. Audience reaction to council proponents’ arguments in favor IPMC implementation were, shall one say, decidedly negative. More about that later, gentle readers.

With neither a printed agenda nor printed minutes of their last meeting on hand, council moved expeditiously through the routine topics of their monthly meeting. First council unanimously approved the minutes of their last meeting, on January 8, without the actual minutes before them. Residents in the audience were queried as to their interest in speaking at this time. None did. Moving on to correspondence, Secretary Hanrahan read a letter from Attorney Myron DeWitt. He offered his services as borough solicitor for a $125 retainer, and $125 per hour. Attorney DeWitt noted that these rates constituted maintenance of the previously established rates, and were a 38% discount over his normal rates. Council voted unanimously to accept his offer.

Next up, Police Chief Jim Smith provided the monthly police report in the absence of Mayor Maby. Lanesboro Police clocked 122 hours patrolling/policing Lanesboro. Their report showed 12 traffic stops, with 9 citations issued and 3 warnings given. The reasons for those stops were for speeding violations (8), inspection violations (3), and careless driving (1). Non-traffic-related responses included incidents described as follows: public assist (transport ride); motorist assist (flat tire); deer hit by vehicle; and an assist to Great Bend P.D. (assault/search). Arrests for made for simple assault (Jan 7); institutional vandalism (Jan 18); and terrorist threats/assault (Jan 23).

Chief Smith reported that for the borough of Thompson, police provided 12 patrol hours, during which they made 10 traffic stops for which they issued five citations and five warnings. Speeding violations were the reason for seven stops; inspection violations two stops; and an equipment violation for one. Police also responded to one dog complaint and one complaint for harassment.

Chief Smith also noted that Rhonda Smith had resigned from the Lanesboro P.D., and that an applicant, Donald Carroll, was present to be interviewed by council during executive session. Council interviewed Mr. Carroll from 7:22 to 7:33 p.m. Announcement was made after the executive session that Mr. Carroll had been hired part-time, no-benefits, and that exact details of his work assignment would be worked out with Mayor Maby. It appears likely eight hours per week will be his regular work assignment. Council members inquiring as to why Ms. Smith had left the borough’s employ were told (by Chief Smith) that she had obtained employment at a higher rate of pay with a security firm closer to her place of residence.

On a final police note, Councilwoman Wilkes noted that there seemed to be a lot of traffic around Luciana Park at various times throughout the day. Chief Smith responded that the park was regularly patrolled, and that he would continue to monitor the area for illicit activities. Anyone with tips may wish to contact Chief Smith.

With no other Parks matters to be discussed, council moved on to routine matters in Streets, and Sewer & Refuse. Notably, council did not take up the issue of the Flood Plain Ordinance (which must be enacted before the end of April). However, council had the final plans in-hand for community center internal renovations/construction and voted to put the job out to bid, advertising in this paper.

At 7:35 p.m. council adjourned the evening’s meeting, and opened a “deliberation” session (at which no policy decisions would be formalized) to consider the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) “line-by-line.” Councilman Fissel, an independent building contractor, took the lead in covering the code. He explained that Chapter 1 of the code was primarily administrative in nature, and that Chapter 2 pertained to definitions. Both chapters, he theorized, should be adopted unchanged. He tipped his toes into the first few lines of Chapter 3, at which time questions arose, and a fast and furious exchange of philosophical views on the role of government proceeded until the meeting’s end at 8 p.m.

Councilmen Fissel and Glidden promoted an activist view of centralized authority, i.e., that the borough government should take a more active role in regulating property maintenance, particularly rental property. In their view, run-down properties in the borough are an eyesore; devalue the property values of others; present a danger to the populace; and are a threat to the health and well-being of the unwary/naïve tenants exploited by ruthless landlords. Government can and should intervene into the marketplace to resolve these unsatisfactory conditions, in their view.

Constituents presented contrarian viewpoints and reframed the current situation. Some noted that residents had faced two major inundations in the last decade, and homeowners could ill-afford to make renovations/upgrades. Another noted that council could theoretically require a property-owner to fix up one’s house, when the borough might not be able to afford to fix the pothole on the road in front of the house. Another inquired as to how enforcement would be accomplished with regard to disabled vehicles on one’s private property. A former councilman in the audience objected to any differentiation in the treatment of rental property, as opposed to owner-occupied properties. What is incontestable is that adoption of the IPMC, whether “in toto” or fractionally, will necessarily narrow the options available to property owners and restrict their choices on how they maintain their property - regardless of their ability or inability to pay.

During council’s executive session, residents in attendance were sequestered in the community center kitchen. I took that opportunity to read to them the IPMC’s Section 101.2 Scope: “The provisions of this code shall apply to all existing residential and nonresidential structures and all existing premises and constitute minimum requirements and standards for premises, structures, equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, operators and occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and premises, and for administration, enforcement and penalties.”

The sweeping scope of the IPMC makes clear that its expansive coercive powers are to be employed to enhance a governmental interest in each title-holder’s property. Subdivisions of government already have a property interest in each residence by virtue of the imposition of real estate taxes. The IPMC merely tips the scales so as to further empower local government to dictate what, when, where, and by what authority corrective actions must be taken for a property-holder to retain title to and possession of his or her property, while concurrently diminishing individual property rights to the point those rights are more illusory than real.

It is unfortunate that too few people realize that just as government has no money of its own, so too it has no power of its own. The only powers which government has are those which we as citizens consent to grant unto it, or those powers which government presumes to confiscate from time to time under one pretext or another. There never can be a strengthening of governmental powers without a corresponding depletion of social power held at the individual level. Lanesboro residents in attendance, and councilwoman Dilello, appeared to have a consciousness of those principles, as well as the vital issue at stake.

Councilmen Fissel and Glidden decried unkempt properties that are eyesores and which they asserted to be safety hazards. Lanesboro residents will have to decide what they prize more highly, the nanny-state “safety” for which councilmen fight, or individual property rights embodied in the principles of liberty, for which our founding fathers fought. The true test of who owns a property is who can decide how it is used. If a property owner must ask permission, refer to a complex code to verify compliance, obtain inspections and permits, and seek governmental stamps of approval and advice of lawyers to satisfy a government entity, it’s obvious who really owns “his” property. Who will be the effective owner of property in Lanesboro - government or individuals - is the vital issue embodied in IPMC.

Lanesboro residents having an opinion as to their property rights and the IPMC and should not hesitate to contact borough officials to share their thoughts. Council wrestles this and other issues of import again at 7:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in March at the Community Center.

Anticipating a big snowstorm the next day, Great Bend Council members wasted little time at their February meeting on the 7th that lasted 10 minutes shy of an hour covering the usual variety of topics.

The most momentous item was the formal adoption of an ordinance imposing fines for parking violations. With a new police department to help enforce the law in the Borough, and having recently purchased a supply of parking ticket blanks and a box to collect them, Council found that it needed the authority to collect parking fines. Most violations will cost $10-$15; parking in a space reserved for the handicapped will cost $200. An additional fine of $75 will be levied for failing to pay a parking fine in a reasonable period of time.

Those fines will help pay for some work in the garage, which also houses the police department office. A deteriorating section of wall has caused some water damage. Council allotted up to about $600 to fix the problem.

Council members have been canvassing businesses in the borough that might want to sponsor the purchase or construction of a new picnic table in one of the Borough’s 3 parks. For the trifling sum of $100, a business – or anyone else, for that matter – can have a small advertisement or memorial associated with a table. Council isn’t sure yet how to make sure the tags will stay put, safe from vandals, but interest is growing. Council member Pat Thatcher says that some 10 tables already have sponsors; the Sons of the Veterans of Foreign Wars have purchased 6.

Mike Crook is preparing to take over as the Borough’s Codes Enforcement Officer, a generally thankless job that tries to get owners to keep their properties tidy. While not authorized to snoop around on private property, he will solicit cooperation, and, where appropriate, may ask the Borough’s police officers for support.

Borough Secretary Sheila Guinan announced that the state’s lobbying organization for boroughs, the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, can make available a discount prescription drug program at no cost to officials, employees and retirees of their members. She also reported on several grant sources that are accepting applications.

JHA Companies (Joe Hunt Associates) of New Milford is offering its services to municipalities dissatisfied with the Council of Governments (COG). COG provides code inspection services for permitted construction. As small as it is, Great Bend Borough doesn’t see a lot of construction; as Council member Jerry MacConnell noted, “there’s not that much that we use COG for.” However, the Borough was notified of a letter of “Intent for Coverage” under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for a new building being constructed for the Woosman Machine Shop. Council chair Rick Franks said he thinks “it’s good that he is building a new building.”

The Borough has a building of its own, also known as the Blue Ridge Senior Center. The wife of Borough Mayor Jim Riecke does the cleaning in the building, so Mayor Riecke knows what it needs. It needs a new vacuum cleaner, for one thing. Council authorized the purchase of same, as well as contracting for the stripping and waxing of the building’s floor for not more than $500.

The Borough will be advertising a new ordinance covering the floodplain, which is important to Great Bend, situated as it is in the bend of a rather large river. The ordinance will allow Borough residents to purchase flood insurance.

The Borough’s own insurance company advised Council not to change its coverage limits on the various structures owned by the town. Most of the valuations are very close to what a detailed appraisal might come up with, and it would be costly to change coverage for such small variations.

With snow on the way, Council noted the age and condition of the town’s snowplow. They will consider replacing it next year, although the truck on which it is mounted seems to be in good shape.

The next meeting of the Great Bend Borough Council is scheduled for Thursday, March 7, 2013, beginning at 7:00 p.m., at the Borough Building at Franklin and Elizabeth Streets.

On February 4th at 7:01 p.m. the Great Bend Township Supervisors called their meeting to order. First on the agenda beyond the approval of the minutes, and the agenda approval itself was a presentation by Russell Miller representing the Leatherstocking Gas Company. They have every intent of populating the area over the next 3 years with high pressure natural gas service. Sadly a major portion of their intent is to facilitate growth along the 81-88 corridor which, while 20 miles away is not a direct impact to the community.

Mr. Miller was also pleased to explain that residents within 100 feet of the supply lines would be offered free connections. Additionally supply lines would be run to major locations like schools, warehouses and other high usage facilities. Free training would be provided to first responders, and as usage expanded a sub station would be established locally to respond to events. Leatherstocking is also committed to helping the community as much as possible during and after the installation of the supply grid.

The right of way request for SR 1033 is still pending as PennDOT has submitted conflicting paperwork which would need to be clarified before the supervisors would grant them the request. The loss of Norm on the sewer authority was still on the agenda, as was the need for an emergency management coordinator. Residents wishing to assist the authority should inform the township of their interest. Southwest Energy Products has applied to the DEP for erosion and sediment control general permits. It hopes to build two natural gas well pads in the township.

The condition of old route 11 was brought to the attention of all via a letter from Mr. Kirk Hinkley Jr. His concerns with the current condition of the road did not fall on deaf ears as the Supervisors take all letters seriously and will in short order investigate the matter with all due diligence. Additionally correspondence was received from PA American Water detailing their Environmental Grant Program.

Among the open comment period was the fact that state work on Orchard Road was insufficient to the task of maintaining the road. It is apparent to residents in the area that insufficient tar and chip was applied to the pothole riddled roadway, and that after the recent storms it appears that the road seems to have sustained sufficient damage to cause it to be moved to a critical project come spring. The supervisors agreed that work was needed and commented that the state had been informed and spring commencement of the project should be expected by the residents.

Before closing at 7:58 p.m. the board announced that the new floodplain ordinance will be advertised for public review pending its approval from DCED. Additionally the Susquehanna County 2012 hazard mitigation plan for Great Bend Township was approved and passed. This will allow residents to file claims to emergency management in the case of a catastrophic event.

The Susquehanna County DOMESTIC RELATIONS Section has outstanding BENCH WARRANT’S for the following individuals as of 3:25 p.m. on February 7, 2013: Elbert G. Allen, Jeremy E. Anderson, Sr, Sharon Baker, Christopher R. Brenner, Sarah A. Briggs, William J. Casey, Marc K. Deesch, Thomas D. Earley, David J. Fischer, John J. Jenisky, Jr, James R. Johnson, Jr, Richard E. Kalinowski, James Karhnak, Teddie P. Kelley, Jr, Kay L. Knolles, Lee Labor, Todd J. Layton, Charlie J. Legere, Robert Lewis, Michael A. Linden, Richard A. Murphy III, Robert A. Muzzy, Heather L. Nystrand, Anastacia V. Poff, Anthony Reed, Perry Rohan, Bruce A. Schurr, Neil D. Shaffer, David J. Shiner, Jerome W. Slick, Eric J. Snell, Stephen Sorensen, Paul E. Steinbiss, Justin S. Thompson, Earl H. Thompson, Jr, Ronald J. Traver, Amy J. VanVleck, Steven G. Warner, Roger Williams, Jamie L. Williams, Sr., Dina C. Wilson, Kelly L. Yarbrough. Please contact the Domestic Relations Section at 570-278-4600 ext. 170 with any information on the location of these individuals.